War.

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Yorick: The United States and Great Britain with the backing of an international community that includes China, Russia, Japan, Germany, France, Australia, Egypt and Italy, bombed military airbases, terrorist training camps and power centres. They did so after 28 days of warnings, diplomatic pressure and military buildups to show that the coalition meant business. They did not send suicide pilots careering into large civilian structures without warning, killing thousands and disabling downtown Kabul for the next year. They did however send food and medicinal supplies immediately after the attacks on the Taliban, to the Afgahn people. This is not WW3. America, Britain and a repressive Wahabi extremist group do not constitute the whole world. Bear in mind also, that WW2 was in part caused by a failure of the policy of appeasement regarding Hitlers aquisitions of Czechoslovakia and Austria. The attitude of "avoid war at all costs" in part caused the worst war the world has seen. I find it increasingly annoying that there are loud shouts against preventative force, and arguments equating this preventative force with "vengance" and "retaliation". No alternative to preventative force is put forward however. Diplomacy? Diplomacy on this matter has been attempted since 1993 and has FAILED. Have these detractors tried the three hour drive into Manhattan from Long Island? Have they been stuck at a border for two hours? Have they been stopped on highways or rerouted from the Hoover dam for example? America is a fortress at the moment. Protected by people. These people must be paid. The fear resultant from the terrorist attacks is creating a recession. Who will then pay for the manned fortress? Protection from the snake cannot go on forever. The snake must be beheaded if it is to die. Osama must go. If the Taliban shelter him, they too must go. A persons inaction when one can prevent murder, creates guilt equal to that of the murderer themself. The government of the United States has an obligation to act and protect it's citizens. That is part of it's job. If one is going to decry violence then decry Wahabism and it's bloodstained past against even Islamics in Saudi Arabia! Decry the coward who hides in a rathole and orders followers to suicidal death. Decry the mothers who give glory to their adolescant sons strapping bombs to their chest and blowing themselves up. Decry hate and ignorance that turns a religion of peace into one of hate and war. But do not decry governments from excercising their right to protect their people from the most cowardly form of war, murder and vandalism. Terrorism. Let us eradicate the concept from human experience.

Yes, an eloquent post, as others have said.

Too bad, however, that it has little relevance to what people have actually been saying here.

It is a straw man argument which presents a false choice, the illusion that we must either do nothing at all or exactly as George Bush has done.

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sazerac:
Dio: Correct me if I'm wrong, but where has Yorick ever admitted to being a "pacifist"?

[/QUO

Hmmmm . . . I thought for sure he had described himself as a christian pacifist before. Yo, Yorick, shed some light on this.

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

A more detailed response to the first post in this thread:

Yorick said:
"The United States and Great Britain with the backing of an international community that includes China, Russia, Japan, Germany, France, Australia, Egypt and Italy, bombed military airbases, terrorist training camps and power centres.
They did so after 28 days of warnings, diplomatic pressure and military buildups to show that the coalition meant business."

My response:
It remains to be seen how long this so called coalition will hang together if the fighting becomes protracted. As for the 28 days, that is nothing except a period of time so short it shows a decided lack of patience on our part and a willingness to abandon prudence and judgement to the emotional desire for action. I remember in the earlier debates on this subject here, how several people were congratulating Bush on his patience. When some of us pointed out that it didn't look at all like he was being patient, since it appeared he was preparing the military for action as soon as it could be ready, several people responded that just because the military was being sent over there didn't mean it would be used. Well, guess what, it should be obvious now that "Mr. Patience" Bush was not patient at all, that he had made up his mind early on to use the military and all his supposed patience was just a matter of waiting till the military forces were in position.

Yorick said:
"They did not send suicide pilots careering into large civilian structures without warning, killing thousands and disabling downtown Kabul for the next year."

My response:
The campaign is quite early, Yorick, give it time. I am quite confident that our military will wreak much more widespread destruction in Afghanistan than the terrorists did here.

Yorick said:
"This is not WW3. America, Britain and a repressive Wahabi extremist group do not constitute the whole world."

My response:
Yes, I agree with you. This is not World War III, by any stretch of the imagination.

Yorick said:
"Bear in mind also, that WW2 was in part caused by a failure of the policy of appeasement regarding Hitlers aquisitions of Czechoslovakia and Austria. The attitude of "avoid war at all costs" in part caused the worst war the world has seen."

My response:
This is a straw man argument. Who here is advocating "avoid war at all costs?" (Except for our resident Pacifist, G'Kar )

Yorick said:
"I find it increasingly annoying that there are loud shouts against preventative force, and arguments equating this preventative force with "vengance" and "retaliation". No alternative to preventative force is put forward however. Diplomacy? Diplomacy on this matter has been attempted since 1993 and has FAILED."

My response:
Diplomacy on what matter since 1993? Huh? Obviously not on the WTC bombings, since that just happened. Sorry, but I haven't the first clue as to what you are talking about here.

And again, you are mistaking criticisms of the way we are handling this situation as absolute pacificism. Another straw man argument.

Yorick said:

"Have these detractors tried the three hour drive into Manhattan from Long Island? Have they been stuck at a border for two hours? Have they been stopped on highways or rerouted from the Hoover dam for example?"

My response:

LOL. Sorry if you feel inconvenienced, but that hardly justifies throwing principle and judgement to the winds, now does it?

Yorick said:
"America is a fortress at the moment. Protected by people. These people must be paid. The fear resultant from the terrorist attacks is creating a recession. Who will then pay for the manned fortress?"

My response:
Personally, I am totally against the idea of turning this country into Fortress Amerika.

Yorick said:
"Protection from the snake cannot go on forever. The snake must be beheaded if it is to die. Osama must go. If the Taliban shelter him, they too must go."

My response:
LOL. So now 28 days constitutes "forever?" We are to rush off with hasty action in less than a month, because of vague fears about what might happen in the future. One would think that the gravity of the situation and the enormous consequences involved would encourage just a little patience.

Yorick said:
"A persons inaction when one can prevent murder, creates guilt equal to that of the murderer themself. The government of the United States has an obligation to act and protect it's citizens. That is part of it's job."

My response:
That obligation and moral right does NOT extend to the murdering of more innocents in the quest for justice, either for a private individual type of murder or that done on the national scene. Besides, part of the argument against military action at this time is precisely because such is NOT a case of the government protecting its citizens, but rather of the government creating a situation which will only serve to ENDANGER more citizens at a later date. We cannot look at this situation only in the short term, with blinders on for the future.

Yorick said:
"If one is going to decry violence then decry Wahabism and it's bloodstained past against even Islamics in Saudi Arabia! Decry the coward who hides in a rathole and orders followers to suicidal death. Decry the mothers who give glory to their adolescant sons strapping bombs to their chest and blowing themselves up."

My response:
Sure, decry those types of violence. However, why stop there? Why not decry all unnecessary violence, by whatever country, including the US?

Yorick said:
"Decry hate and ignorance that turns a religion of peace into one of hate and war."

My response:
Sure, I agree, but also decry hate and ignorance that turns a country like America into one of hate and war.

Yorick said:
"But do not decry governments from excercising their right to protect their people from the most cowardly form of war, murder and vandalism."

My response:
Again, governments have the right to protect their people. However, the point you are ignoring is that does not give them the right commit injustice themselves. Whether the current action is an injustice or not is a separate debate, however. Arguing that the current action is itself an injustice, in the form it is taking, is NOT the same as saying governments have no right to protect people. Indeed, part of the argument against the course we seem to be taking is that it will NOT protect people, but only create more danger for them in the future from the fall out of what we are doing now.

Yorick said:
"Terrorism. Let us eradicate the concept from human experience."

My response:
Sure, let us do that. Let us eradicate it in all its forms, including that masquerading as the legitimate use of military force at times when it is unnecessary and in ways in which it is inappropriate.

[Yorick]

Dio, I am unmoved. I stand by what I say.

For the record if you define a pacifist as one who desires peace, one who seeks nonviolent solutions where possible and one who seeks to sow seeds of harmony, forgiveness and love instead of kneejerk violent reactions, aggression and revenge, then yes I am a pacifist.

If you define a pacifist as one who seeks to avoid any use of force under any circumstance even at the detriment of ones family or people, then no I am not a pacifist.

I see no contradiction between my positional definition and the current course of events.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Diogenes Of Pumpkintown]

Originally posted by Yorick: Dio, I am unmoved. I stand by what I say. For the record if you define a pacifist as one who desires peace, one who seeks nonviolent solutions where possible and one who seeks to sow seeds of harmony, forgiveness and love instead of kneejerk violent reactions, aggression and revenge, then yes I am a pacifist. If you define a pacifist as one who seeks to avoid any use of force under any circumstance even at the detriment of ones family or people, then no I am not a pacifist. I see no contradiction between my positional definition and the current course of events.

Fair enough, but the first definition of pacifism is awfully weak. It amounts to following pacific principles until they are put to the test. So you are not really a pacifist then. My mistake.

And again, to clarify my position above, my chief objection to your long post is that it presents a false choice -- that we must either do nothing at all or agree with George Bush's approach. There are many other choices and possiblities, many of which involve the use of force, as I and others have argued from the beginning.

However, it is early on in the conflict. What happens out of all this obviously remains to be seen.

[Yorick]

I disagree Dio. absolute pacifiscm has caused wars and conflict in the past, both on an individual and relationship spectrum. In a relationship between pursuer and distancer (I was the distancer) avoiding conflict created escalations from the pursuer. Taking the bull by the horns can, and does, achieve longterm peace. It is longterm peace I desire, not a faux covering of inaction.

------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Memnoch]

Originally posted by Ziroc: It makes me SICK when we are going after the 'bad' guys, and strike, then they scream 'This is a Holy war, you are attacking Islam' Give me a break...

The word "jihad" must be the most overused and misunderstood word in the Arabic language. Crazies like bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and Egyptian Jihad use it to get more living weapons for their causes.

------------------

[Memnoch]

G'day Yorick. Good to see you again, mate.

------------------

[Yorick]

Hi Memnoch, good to see you too bro.

Hey thanks to those that supported, agreed and otherwise gave encouragement on this thread. I do appreciate your words, even if I may end up spending more time writing to those that disagree. I appreciate the endorsements and 1000% percent agreement immensely. Cheers guys

I just saw on the TV that according to the Taliban, the number of dead has dropped from 20 to six. Six dead.

If the government had shot down the second jet so that the first tower hadn't fallen, would we have complained? More would have died in that act of prevention than the six who died in the destruction of military targets in Afgahnistan. Heck, the Taliban are killing more Afgahnis than the Coalition did.


------------------
I am the walrus!.... er, no hang on....

A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

*feels the nail, stigmata of a belief relevant to history and humanity.*

Man, people actually argue what it means to be a pacifist. To really know, you must follow an example and live to be one. Theorize and opinionize all you like, but if you havent lived it, you dont really know. Martin Luther King Jr., An american and a Christian who changed the world advocating action and non-violence. His dream was for the children, our kids will face a future generation of terrorists with even more hate for the evil western empire. We can soak up the good feeling of action all we want, but without forethought of the consequences, it will become a empty feeling soon enough.

I cannot comment much more on the strong opinion expressed in the original post, but to me thats all it was, an opinion, just strong, thats all. Mere facts can refute even a strong well-crafted opinion.